- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,516
- Reaction score
- 8,229
- Location
- Montreal, QC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Is that what you think?
That is nice.
:doh
The laws were struck down on the basis of safety. Why they were laws in the first place is not the discussion and is irrelevant.
Which does not change the fact that their being struck down is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Wtf does that have to do with what you having said, being nice?It does not or do you not believe in personal freedom?
Because this will have the opposite effect of what you outline. How does this decision in any way put pimps out of business? Pimps don't exist to protect the women from the police. And regardless of how legal prostitution is in any nation, there are still pimps and girls working the street.
That is not something that needs to be explained as we all know what those standards are, so it is self evident.Ok, nevermind. You wont answer because the answer weakens your argument.
You still have not explained how the law being struck down is a further erosion of decency standards. How was that law maintaining decency standards previously?
Wtf does that have to do with what you having said, being nice?
:doh
Which is not what you originally claimed I was running from. So you are just trying to spin the known facts.
I have stood by what I said and have not backed down. It is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
It is also funny you don't understand that that question is irrelevant to what I said.
That is not something that needs to be explained as we all know what those standards are, so it is self evident.
And no it doesn't weaken or change anything I said.
It is an erosion of standards of decency.
That is not something that needs to be explained as we all know what those standards are, so it is self evident.
And no it doesn't weaken or change anything I said.
It is an erosion of standards of decency.
Why are you asking me about something I never said?Why should my morals be decided by you? Take homosexuality for example, you may believe it is wrong but I do not, so why should homosexuality be illegal.
Irrelevant question is irrelevant.Just answer the question. Clear this up for us since we're clearly not reading you properly.
How would it not? Pimps exist because they peddle an illegal service and act as protective muscle for a vulnerable group of people, consequently they also act as control and distribution pipelines. Remove the illegality and women can actively seek police protection without endangering themselves or their clientele, they can occupy actual property which can take them off the streets, and encourages health and safety regulation instead of police action.
Prostitution in a globalized world is fraught with complex problems but criminalization is the worst of all possible options. It doesn't prevent women from becoming prostitutes, it doesn't reduce human trafficking, and it doesn't meaningfully reduce their clientele. Legalization doesn't remove pimps, it doesn't end human trafficking, and it doesn't make the job safe for every women. But it makes things more manageable, it increases safety, reduces health risks, and perhaps most crucially it gives people sovereignty over their bodies.
Why are you asking me about something I never said?
What I said is that it is an erosion of the standards of decency.
You are assuming something I did not say.
Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.
So stop assuming I mean something I did not say.
Why are you asking me about something I never said?
What I said is that it is an erosion of the standards of decency.
You are assuming something I did not say.
Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.
So stop assuming I mean something I did not say.
How many times do you need to be told?Do you or do you not oppose making prostitution legal?
The only reason you wouldn't answer this simple question is because the answer is embarrassing or inconvenient for you. As such, I would strongly suggest re-examining your views.
Irrelevant question is irrelevant.
I seldomly, if ever, answer irrelevant questions.
This time is no different.
I will not be answering your irrelevant question.
How many different ways do you need to be told?
It is a further erosion of the standards of decency. That is clear, and needs no further clarification.
Irrelevant question is irrelevant.
I seldomly, if ever, answer irrelevant questions.
This time is no different.
I will not be answering your irrelevant question.
How many different ways do you need to be told?
It is a further erosion of the standards of decency. That is clear, and needs no further clarification.
And again.What you view as indecent aka morals are different than what I view as indecent.
:dohAlright incoherence wins the day.
How many time do you need to be told?
It is like talking to a four year old.
And again.
Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.
I do not care if you agree or don't agree with those standards. They have been further eroded.
Your assumptions were assumptions. You clearly should not be making such assumptions as young as you appear to be.Yes, though the four year-old is not the one you think.
It's fine, Excon; everyone already knows what you think, because everything you said only makes sense one way. I thought you might have some courage behind it, but if not, oh well. I've got other things to worry about, and we both know what your answer is, even if you can't bring yourself to say it.
:dohEveryone's standard of decency is different, it made have eroded yours but it has kept mine the same.
Your assumptions were assumptions. You clearly should not be making such assumptions as young as you appear to be.
It is your fault for reading into what was said.
It is a further erosion of standards of decency. Too bad you want to assume it means more than that.
We are talking about the known standards, which have been further eroded.
You seem to be confused as there is nothing that needs to be clarified.:lamo
You can clear the whole matter up by simply answering the question. The "assumption" -- that you oppose making prostitution legal -- is correct. If it isn't, then say so. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, oh well. We all know the score.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?